Carl Dausch, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee — Polston, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would affirm that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to determine Dausch’s identity as the perpetrator, but would order a new trial because the trial court improperly excluded an alleged suicide letter offered to rebut the State’s consciousness-of-guilt theory. It reasoned that nonexclusion DNA evidence, a suicide attempt, fingerprints, and eyewitness testimony could be considered together and viewed in the light most favorable to the State. The dissent would reject vacating the convictions for insufficient evidence and would instead remand for a new trial.